Does hooliganism need to be tempered?

Never before has football had such deep access to capital, or faced such complex questions about what that means for the future of the sport.

Private equity firms are investing in clubs, institutional investors are moving into stadiums and sports infrastructure, and clubs are looking beyond broadcasting and matchday revenue towards property, hospitality, entertainment and technology.

The question is no longer whether football needs investments. It’s what happens when investment starts influencing the way the game is run.

The issue came sharply into focus this year when FIFA proposed creating FIFA Forward Enterprise, a new FIFA-owned subsidiary that would bring together its commercial and event operations. The concept would effectively place the World Cup, the crown jewel of global football and FIFA’s blue chip stock, inside an investable structure. 

The proposal envisaged raising up to $6 billion by selling minority, non-controlling stakes in the subsidiary to external investors, based on an initial valuation of $29 billion. FIFA said the additional capital would help increase development funding for its 211 member associations.

The proposal triggered a governance crisis, while major questions about Gianni Infantino’s tenure as FIFA President continue.

UEFA, CONCACAF and (to a lesser-extent) the AFC were among the confederations to object, variously stating they had learned about the proposal through media reports rather than through FIFA’s own consultation process.

Amid a firestorm of criticism, the proposal was ultimately abandoned.

Now, Gianni Infantino has proposed an independent review of the organisation’s governance framework for major strategic initiatives, including how responsibility is divided between the president, Bureau, Council and Congress.

That makes this bigger than one investment proposal.

It’s a debate about who should control football’s commercial future.

Capital isn’t the enemy

There is an obvious argument in favour of private investment.

Football is an expensive business.

At club level, the relationship between capital and football is becoming increasingly sophisticated and complex.

RC Lens recently brought infrastructure investor Entrepreneur Equity Partners into its ownership structure, with the club saying the investment will fund development around the Stade Bollaert-Delelis and help create new revenue opportunities beyond matchdays.

Alas, there is a cost that comes with the capital. 

Investors ultimately expect a financial return. This won’t always conflict with supporters’ interests, but it can create different priorities.

Whereas a supporter might value affordability, identity and competitive success, an investor might instead look at property development, hospitality, commercial growth and the long-term value of an asset.

Neither perspective is inherently wrong.

But problems begin when financial objectives and football objectives stop overlapping and start pointing in different directions.

The ownership question

Chelsea provides a useful example of how quickly football ownership can change.

Clearlake Capital has now taken full control of the London club after acquiring the stakes previously held by Todd Boehly and Mark Walter, in a transaction that values the club at around $9.5 billion including debt. Todd Boehly only invested in the club four years ago.

That does not mean Chelsea’s new ownership structure is better or worse than before.

It demonstrates something important about modern football.

Football is becoming an asset class

That is perhaps the biggest change.

Football is no longer simply something wealthy individuals buy because they love the sport.

It is increasingly being viewed by institutional investors as an asset class with multiple potential revenue streams.

That means the investment opportunity can extend beyond owning a club.

There is private capital in stadiums, infrastructure, media rights, technology, sponsorship businesses and surrounding property.

It also explains why the FIFA proposal was so significant.

FIFA was effectively exploring whether the enormous commercial value of its competitions could be packaged into an investable structure.

FIFA argued investors would hold minority positions and would not receive control over sporting decisions or governance. It also argued the additional commercial value could increase funding available to football associations around the world.

That is a legitimate commercial proposition.

But once an asset is valued in the billions and external investors are being invited to participate, questions about control inevitably follow.

Who decides which commercial opportunities are pursued?

What happens when investors want one thing and football stakeholders want another?

And perhaps most importantly, who ultimately gets the benefit from football becoming more valuable?

The danger isn’t investment. It’s misalignment.

Football should not pretend it can grow without capital.

Football today requires enormous amounts of it.

The challenge is ensuring investment strengthens the sport rather than gradually redefining what the sport means to fans.

There are good reasons for clubs to develop their stadiums, diversify revenue and attract institutional capital.

There are also good reasons for supporters, players, federations and communities to ask what they receive in return.

FIFA’s recent episode demonstrates how quickly these questions can become political as well as financial.

The fact FIFA is now considering an independent governance review following such backlash shows the debate is not simply about whether the investment proposal was commercially sensible, but also about how decisions of that scale should be made.

That may be the most important question for football’s next financial era.

Private capital is here to stay. The tap isn’t turning off.

So, it’s critical football determines its rules of engagement before the next billion-dollar proposal lands on the table.